Central Information Commission
Radha Raman Tiwari vs Bank Of Baroda on 5 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/610410
Radha Raman Tiwari ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11.02.2024 FA : 01.03.2024 SA : 09.03.2024
CPIO : 01.03.2024 FAO : 06.03.2024 Hearing : 08.04.2025
Date of Decision: 01.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"In the light of above-mentioned facts, especially the Judgement passed on 22nd August, 2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Supra), please furnish the CERTIFIED COPY (as mandated in Circular No. 10/1/2019-IR dated 17ª March, 2015, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, regarding Format for giving information to the Applicant under RTI Act) of following information (as defined U/s 2(f) of RTI Act)-Page 1 of 20
1. Copy of Notes {as placed (dt.21.02.2017) in the case of Applicant}, placed by the Head (HR Administration) before Managing Director & CEO to take a view in the matter of release of promotion from wait list to next Higher Cadre of below mentioned Executives/ (where only Show-cause notice was issued, but Disciplinary Proceedings was not initiated on the date of release of promotion)-
Sl. Name Executives/ Date of Release of Details of adverse matter in respect No. Officers Promoted Promotion/ Next Higher of which show-cause was issued to Cadre Executives/ Officers as appearing in Hrness data of individual Executives 1 Mr. Dudeja Vineet 01.03.2016 TEG/S-VII Irregularities/deficiencies in Kumar (EC No. General Manager Foreign Exchange transaction at 28472) Ashok Vihar Branch during August 2014 to July 2015.
2 Mr. Singla Adesh 01.03.2015 TEG/S-VII Lapses in monitoring of 33 Car
Kumar (FC No. General Manager Loan A/Cs and 3 truck Loan A/Cs at
22208) TC Office Branch, Lucknow.
3 Mr. Ravi Kumar 01.02.2013 TEG/S-VII Lapses in Mahua Media Pvt. Ltd.
Arora (EC No. General Manager Lapses in the A/c of M/s Elite
21002) Perfumers at CFS Branch, New
Delhi-Irregularities in sanction
Disbursement of advances.
4 Mr. Singla Durga 01.01.2013 TEG/S-VII Lapses in appraisal &
Das (EC General Manager recommendations, disbursement &
No.19865) monitoring of credit facility granted
to M/s. Century Comm. Ltd, Pearl
Vision Ltd, Pixion Media Pvt Ltd-
FMR No. BOB1203-0015 dated
Page 2 of 20
30.09.2012, Century Group A/C-
FMR No. BOB1203-0014 dated
30.09.2012.
5 Mr. Guha 01.09.2017 TEG/S-VI Irregularities in disbursement &
Dipanakar (EC Deputy General monitoring of Adv. A/C of M/S Sri
No.55959) Manager Ganesh Jewelry House I ltd (at 1BB
Kolkata)"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Similar information was sought in the RTI application no. BKOBD/R/E/22/0 0063 dated 13.01.2022 and the same has been replied vide letter No. BCC:RTI:PIO:114/5 7 dated 05.02.2022 at point no 2. Vide order dated 31.07.2023, Hon'ble CIC observed that "the had complainant sought information related to third party, the disclosure of which would have caused unwarranted invasion on the privacy individual of the and might be exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act." Thus the matter already attended finality with respect to the information sought by you and there appears to be no Public interest."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 06.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.03.2024.
5. The Appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Sunil Kumar DGM, Ms. Charuta Joshi CM Legal attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 206. The Appellant argued on the lines of his arguments contained in his written statement stating as under:
"Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in the matter of Writ Petition No. 23695 of 2022 (GM-RES) (NC:2023: KHC: 29928) (AS Mallikarjun swamy VS State Information Commissioner, Bengaluru), laid down the following ratios per its Judgement dated 22nd August, 2023-
3. "Having heard the petitioner-party-in-person and learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter in as much as there is no scope for invocation of Sec.8(1) (j) since petitioner is not a stranger to the Respondent institution, but a Lecturer working therein since years; it hardly needs to be stated that for working out redressal for the grievances in service, an employee has to have full service particulars of other employees working under the same employer especially when dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like. The decision cited by the learned Panel Counsel in GIRISH RAMACHANDRA DESHPANDE supra had a different fact matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal information cannot be furnished.
5. In view of the above, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the State Information Commission; petitioner's subject RTI application having been favoured, the 5th respondent is directed to furnish service particulars of the persons concerned and copies of records in that connection within a period of three weeks, failing which for the delay of each day, the 5th respondent shall pay from his pocket a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner.
The 5th respondent-Principal shall also pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses."
a) There is catena of Orders, passed by Hon'ble CIC, where stricture /adverse observation is made against the FAA, for not giving personal hearing. A few of such Orders, are being quoted on illustrative basis-
Page 4 of 20CIC/BKOBD/A/2021/694421 (Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury VS Bank of Baroda) CIC/CICOM/A/2022/141609 (Shyam Vir Singh VS Central Information Commission) CIC/CICOM/A/2022/655663 (Rajendra K. Ramchandani VS Central Information Commission) Prayer In the light of above cited grounds, Appellant, requests Your good-self as under;
to pass Order to provide IMMEDIATELY, the information as sought per point No. 1 of RTI Application No. BKOBD/R/E/24/00317 dated 11.02.2024.
to Caution the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for not having given personal hearing, while disposing the First Appeal, though specifically requested."
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant as recorded above and struggled to answer certain service-related queries posed to them in respect of the Appellant being considered for the promotion, details of which are not being recorded as being extraneous to the mandate of the RTI Act. However, their reliance on the arguments as contained in their written submissions dated 07.04.2025 stating inter alia as under was taken on record:
"On perusal of the RTI applications dated 11.02.2024 and RTI application dated 13.01.2022 filed by the Applicant it is clear that information sought in both the applications are similar in nature. Applicant is playing with the words by placing it here and there. While hearing earlier second Appeal filed by the appellant against regarding the RTI Application dated 13.01.2022, the Hon'ble CIC, dismissed the same vide its Order dated 31.07.2023. For ready perusal, we are providing herewith a chronology of earlier RTI Application along with date and contents of reply by CPIO, decision by Hon'ble CIC along with reply to the present Application dated 11.02.2024.
xxx
Page 5 of 20
Hon'ble CIC in its Judgment dated 31.07.2023 in F. No.
CIC/BKOBD/C/2022/625058 filed by the Appellant had observed that, "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 11.02.2022. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the complainant had sought information related to third party, the disclosure of which would have caused unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual and might be exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Moreover, it was not a case that the RTI application was not responded by the respondent. In view of the above, no mala fide could be attributed to the CPIO and there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter, Accordingly, the complaint is closed."
It may not be out of place to add that, Mr Tiwari i.e. the applicant in present case was working with the respondent Bank. He had filed LPA No. 191 of 2018 before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging the action of the Bank inter- alia not granting him promotion, which is decided by the Hon'ble Court and Bank has already complied the said Order in its letter and spirit. Copy of the order is enclosed for your ready reference.
In the light of the above, we humbly submit before the Hon'ble Commission to dismiss the appeal and pass a suitable order."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that as far as the disclosure of the information entailing the 'notes placed by the Head (HR Administration) before Managing Director & CEO' regarding release of promotion of the averred third parties is concerned, the denial citing the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be faulted. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of AS Mallikarjun Swamy VS State Information Commissioner, Bengaluru, Writ Petition No. 23695 of 2022 has been duly considered.
Page 6 of 209. It is pertinent to note that the AS Mallikarjun Swamy (supra) matter based its judgment vis-à-vis the reliance placed by the Respondent in that case on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande and rejected the reliance by observing that- "The decision cited by the learned Panel Counsel in GIRISH RAMACHANDRA DESHPANDE supra had a different fact matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal information cannot be furnished."
The judgment further emphasizes that- "It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that has been laid down in a given fact matrix of a case and not for all that which logically follows from what has been laid down."
Now, looking at the facts of the Girish Ramachandra case, the following contents spell out the nature of the information sought for that was under consideration and the reply provided by the CPIO in that case:
"3. The petitioner herein had submitted an application on 27.8.2008 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) calling for various details relating to third respondent, who was employed as an Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola, now working in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As many as 15 queries were made to which the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur gave the following reply on 15.9.2008:
"As to Point No.1: Copy of appointment order of Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 pages. You have sought the details of salary in respect of Shri A.B. Lute, which relates to personal information the disclosures of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual hence denied as per the RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
As to Point No.2: Copy of order of granting Enforcement Officer Promotion to Shri A.B. Lute, is in 3 Number. Details of salary to the post along with statutory and other deductions of Mr. Lute is denied to provide as per RTI provisions under Section 8(1)(j) for the reasons mentioned above.Page 7 of 20
As to Point NO.3: All the transfer orders of Shri A.B. Lute, are in 13 Numbers. Salary details is rejected as per the provision under Section 8(1)(j) for the reason mentioned above.
As to Point No.4: The copies of memo, show cause notice, censure issued to Mr. Lute, are not being provided on the ground that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Please see RTI provision under Section 8(1)(j)."
The Court thus held as under:
"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right." Emphasis Supplied
10. Now, the bench is of the considered opinion that, it is a matter of judicial discipline and propriety to rely on the Apex Court's Constitution bench judgment in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Page 8 of 20 Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794 in the following manner:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
11. However, in the facts of the instant matter it is imperative to read the preface or the genesis/discussion, wherefrom the above deduction was arrived at by the Apex Court. The following contents are thus reproduced from the text of the Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case for emphasis:
"40. The right to privacy though not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of India is now recognized as a basic fundamental right vide decision of the Constitutional Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others26 holding that it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and recognised under several international treaties, chief among them being Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. The judgment Page 9 of 20 recognizes that everyone has a right to the protection of laws against such interference or attack.
41. In K.S.Puttaswamy (supra) the main judgment (authored by D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) has referred to provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to highlight that the right to privacy is entrenched with constitutional status in Part III of the Constitution, thus providing a touchstone on which validity of executive decisions can be assessed and validity of laws can be determined vide judicial review exercised by the courts. This observation highlights the status and importance of the right to privacy as a constitutional right. The ratio as recorded in the two concurring judgments of 26 (2017) 10 SCC 1 the learned judges (R.F. Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.) are similar. It is observed that privacy involves a person's right to his physical body; right to informational privacy which deals with a person's mind; and the right to privacy of choice which protects an individual's autonomy over personal choices. While physical privacy enjoys constitutional recognition in Article 19(1)(d) and (e) read with Article 21, personal informational privacy is relatable to Article 21 and right to privacy of choice is enshrined in Articles 19(1)(a) to (c), 20(3), 21 and 25 of the Constitution. In the concurring opinion, there is a reference to 'The Right to Privacy' by Samuel Warren and Louis D. Brandeis on an individual's right to control the dissemination of personal information and that an individual has a right to limit access to such information/shield such information from unwarranted access. Knowledge about a person gives another power over that person, as personal data collected is capable of effecting representations in his decision making process and shaping behaviour which can have a stultifying effect on the expression of dissent which is the cornerstone of democracy. In the said concurring judgment, it has been further held that the right to protection of reputation from being unfairly harmed needs to be zealously guarded not only against falsehood but also against certain truths... (Emphasis Supplied) Page 10 of 20 xxx
43. Privacy and confidentiality encompass a bundle of rights including the right to protect identity and anonymity. Anonymity is where an individual seeks freedom from identification, even when and despite being in a public space....
xxx
46........ In the context of the RTI Act, suffice would be to say that the right to protect identity and anonymity would be identically subjected to the public interest test.
47. Clause (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act specifically refers to invasion of the right to privacy of an individual and excludes from disclosure information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such individual, unless the disclosure would satisfy the larger public interest test. This clause also draws a distinction in its treatment of personal information, whereby disclosure of such information is exempted if such information has no relation to public activity or interest. We would like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption, this Court has treated the word 'information' which if disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.
48. As per Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, the word 'personal' means 'of or affecting a person or of or constituting personal property'....
xxx
51. This test had been adopted in several English decisions including decision of the House of Lords in Campbell v. Mirror Group Newspapers Limited wherein Lord Hope of Craighead had further elucidated that the definition is taken from the definition of 'privacy' in the United States, where the right to privacy is invaded if the matter which Page 11 of 20 is publicised is of a kind that - (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and
(b) not of legitimate concern to the public. Law of privacy in Campbell (supra), it was observed, was not intended for the protection of the unduly sensitive and would cover matters which are offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities who must expect some reporting of his daily activities. The mind that has to be examined is not that of a reader in general, but that of the person who is affected by the publicising/dissemination of his information. The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if he/she is subjected to such publicity. Only when publicity is such that a reasonable person would feel justified in feeling seriously aggrieved that there would be an invasion in the right to privacy which gives rise to a cause of action.
52. In Douglas (supra), it was also held that there are different degrees of privacy which would be equally true for information given in confidentiality, and the potential for disclosure of the information to cause harm is an important factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the extent of the restriction to protect the right to privacy.
53. While clause (j) exempts disclosure of two kinds of information, as noted in paragraph 47 above, that is "personal information" with no relation to public activity or interest and "information" that is exempt from disclosure to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy, this Court has not underscored, as will be seen below, such distinctiveness and treated personal information to be exempt from disclosure if such disclosure invades on balance the privacy rights, thereby linking the former kind of information with the latter kind. This means that information, which if disclosed could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy rights, would mean personal information, that is, which is not having co-relation with public information.
54. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others34, the applicant had sought copies of all memos, show-cause notices and Page 12 of 20 censure/punishment awarded to a Government employee from his employer and also details of his movable/immovable properties, details of investment, loan and borrowings from financial institutions, details of gifts accepted by the employee from his family members and relatives at the time of the marriage of his son. In this context, it was observed:
'12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show- cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right....
55. In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and Another35, the applicant had sought information on parameters with regard to transfer of clerical staff with details of individual employees, such as date of their joining, promotion earned, date of their joining the branch, the authorities who had posted the transfer letters, etc. The information sought was declared to be personal in nature, which was conditionally exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 13 of 20
56. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Others36, the applicant (who is also the respondent in the present appeals) had sought information relating to details of medical facilities availed by individual judges of the Supreme Court and their family members, including information relating to private treatment in India and abroad in last three years. This Court had held that the information sought by the applicant was 35 (2018) 11 SCC 426 36 (2018) 11 SCC 634 'personal' information and was protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, for disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy which prohibition would not apply where larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information.
57. In R.K. Jain v. Union of India and Another37, the applicant had sought inspection of documents relating to Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of a Member of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and follow up action taken by the authorities based on the ACRs. The information sought was treated as personal information, which, except in cases involving overriding public interest, could not be disclosed. It was observed that the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act in such cases has to be followed. The matter was remitted to examine the aspect of larger public interest and to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act which, it was held, was mandatory.
58. Reference can also be made to Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), as discussed earlier in paragraph 32, where this Court has held that while a fiduciary could not withhold information from the beneficiary in whose benefit he holds such information, he/she 37 (2013) 14 SCC 794 owed a duty to the beneficiary to not disclose the same to anyone else. This exposition of the Court equally reconciles the right to know with the rights to privacy under clause (j) to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
12. The above emphasised contents take us to the question of deciding whether there is any public interest involved in the disclosure of the information sought for in the Page 14 of 20 instant RTI Application squarely relating to the service matter of third parties. Here, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person Page 15 of 20 with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Further, in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal (supra) case, the Apex Court had touched upon this aspect at length and some of the notable contents relevant to the instant discussion is reproduced hereunder:
"75. Public interest in access to information refers to something that is in the interest of the public welfare to know. Public welfare is widely different from what is of interest to the public. "Something which is of interest to the public" and "something which is in the public interest" are two separate and different parameters. For example, Page 16 of 20 the public may be interested in private matters with which the public may have no concern and pressing need to know. However, such interest of the public in private matters would repudiate and directly traverse the protection of privacy.
The object and purpose behind the specific exemption vide clause (j) to Section 8(1) is to protect and shield oneself from unwarranted access to personal information and to protect facets like reputation, honour, etc. associated with the right to privacy. Similarly, there is a public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality in the case of private individuals and even government, an aspect we have already discussed.
76. The public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to a particular information and the person. In an article 'Freedom of Information and the Public Interest: the Commonwealth experience' published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, the factors identified as favouring disclosure, those against disclosure and lastly those irrelevant for consideration of public interest have been elucidated as under:
"it is generally accepted that the public interest is not synonymous with what is of interest to the public, in the sense of satisfying public curiosity about some matter. For example, the UK Information Tribunal has drawn a distinction between 'matters which were in the interests of the public to know and matters which were merely interesting to the public (i.e. which the public would like to know about, and which sell newspapers, but... are not relevant). Emphasis Supplied Factors identified as favouring disclosure include the public interest in: contributing to a debate on a matter of public importance; accountability of officials;Page 17 of 20
openness in the expenditure of public funds, the performance by a public authority of its regulatory functions, the handling of complaints by public authorities; exposure of wrongdoing, inefficiency or unfairness; individuals being able to refute allegations made against them; enhancement of scrutiny of decision-making; and protecting against danger to public health or safety.
Factors that have been found to weigh against disclosure include: the likelihood of damage to security or international relations; the likelihood of damage to the integrity or viability of decision-making processes: the public interest in public bodies being able to perform their functions effectively; the public interest in preserving the privacy of individuals and the public interest in the preservation of confidences.
Factors irrelevant to the consideration of the public interest have also been identified. These include: that the information might be misunderstood; that the requested information in overly technical in nature; and that disclosure would result in embarrassment to the government or to officials."
10. The foregoing extrapolation of the averred Apex Court judgment read with the case laws specific to determining what constitutes larger public interest as well as the observation of the Court in the AS Mallikarjun Swamy case that- "It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that has been laid down in a given fact matrix of a case and not for all that which logically follows from what has been laid down." emphasizes rationale in upholding the denial of the information by the CPIO. In other words, it will not be out of place to hold the view that the decision issued in the AS Mallikarjun Swamy case cannot be treated as binding in the facts of the instant case when viewed from the perspective of the precedent laid down in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case that took into consideration multiple nature of cases involving third party service matter related requisition for information made by RTI Applicants.
Page 18 of 2011. To reiterate, in the instant matter, the Commission relies on the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case law to uphold the denial of the personal information of the third parties and finds that the material on record does not ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the third parties in any of the contexts discussed hereinabove.
12. The FAA is nonetheless cautioned in light of the allegations of the Appellant that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before deciding the First Appeal. The FAA is directed to ensure that in keeping with the principle of natural justice, the applicants are afforded an opportunity to be heard, more particularly in cases where the applicants specifically ask for a personal hearing as was the case in the instant First Appeal.
13. With the above findings and warning issued to the FAA, the Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 01.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Page 19 of 20 Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051
2. The FAA Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051
--(For taking note of the warning issued as above)
3. Radha Raman Tiwari Page 20 of 20 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)